reply to post by Sphota
...If I really wanted to, I could get 300 like-minded individuals together and make a factory tomorrow, for whatever purpose.
I doubt it, and it looks like others see this as more talk than likelihood, but Socialism and Utopianism is often long on talk, and theory, and short
of real-life examples. But, I can let others debate this.
In that the material framework of capitalism is extant, yes, there would be no need to build factories (except perhaps here in America where
they all seem to have magically been transported to the third world by Friedman, the faerie godfather of neoliberalism). The factories that do exist
should be made use of in a transition, it would be wasteful not to.
Ah, how horrible it would be to "waste" a perfectly good factory. Certainly it should be "made use of", in the "transition"...
But what if the existing factory belonged to YOU. Why should you give it up voluntarily? Not likely? Then why should anyone else assume they have a
right to confiscate private property?
Ah, the "transition"...As usual, there are some subtle semantics being employed, but this transition would not doubt eradicate private property,
ultimately. Could you do it without force? No? No thanks.
...What was the housing bubble, if not partially the creation of a glut of structures with no real purpose. Yes, we can argue that when one builds a
house, one intends for that house to be occupied. But, as can clearly be seen, in the supply chain and labor chain of production, homes are built
without the express necessity on the part of the construction company or financier that they be occupied. This is even more emphatically supported by
wealthy developers, such as Donald Trump, who sells his "brand" (a hallow shell of a product - a cognitive deception, really) and then when the
project goes belly up or has some other issue, he is protected because Trump the physical person is not Trump the Corporation (ironically, Latin for
I live in South Florida...outside of Las Vegas, I think I know what I can see with my own eyes. And my eyes see a lot of unfinished construction
projects, unoccupied completed projects, and derelict previously used buildings. Interestingly, there is high unemployment and people complain about
jobs being offshored. Any one of those abandoned and neglected blights could be used tomorrow for either housing in the case of residential or working
in the case of commercial/industrial. But someone owns them who is waiting for the building to "have a purpose" so it is worth more
You likely know why a glut of structures were created. It's one of the pillars of Communism, it's called a CENTRAL BANK. Look it up. One more
thing that works in Utopia, but not in the real world.
This is not temporal. This is a long time comin', as they say. Detroit and New Orleans were just harbingers. I've lived in the so-called third world
and I can tell you what to expect if you'd like to listen. I don't know your economic status, but I know mine and it's what you'd call lower
middle-class. Better than working poor, but only because I live with relatives. I'd like to fix that, but I know that middle class is not an easy
club to enter right now and most people have hunkered down who will survive this transition (the transition from the US the way we previously
conceived of it to it's new globalist status as thirdworld enclave). Those not in the middle class will not be getting into it easily and the middle
class itself with have to undergo a radical shift in self-perception and many in it will soon find a new strange limbo between working poor and middle
This may, or may not be true, regarding the future. While I tend to agree with you that the US is heading for harder times that will likely not be
temporary, it might be good to wonder why this is so.
Our masters have plans, and America fits right in. It has it's role to play, on the global stage. While we could speculate about what exactly that
role may be, I think I can agree with you that a "middle-class" is generally not considered a desirable thing by the elite. Eventually, the whole
world will likely be divided into good old-fashioned "haves", and "have-nots", regardless of our present views.
Along the way, I continue to think we have to be careful of falling for the traps that have been set. Certainly, Socialism is a big one. Can
humanity somehow "beat" the odds, and one day be free of the present tyranny? Probably not, but then, I can be rather pessimistic at times. Like
when I see threads like this, and so many being pulled along by the nose, imagining that fantasies will work out somehow. Well, they will work out:
For our masters. Which is why I'm generally against fantasizers who are unwittingly helping Massa forge our chains.
What went wrong? SOCIALISM. Same song, but socialists play a fun game of pin the tail on the capitalist!
Mortgage backed securities is socialism? They should never have torn down the regulation between investment banking and mortgages. That was a bad
Personally, I find it repugnant that anyone should have to live in a high rise tenement or dumpy apartment block. And then, as a society, we wonder
what exactly goes wrong with "those people". You cannot solve one problem and then avoid the others, that is why I bring this up here. There is no
way to look at the mortgage issue without analyzing the social flaw in mortgages to begin with.
It is 100% unreasonable that any human being born into this world should be denied their own land to live on. And while I agree that communal living
is optimal because we are social creatures, there needs to be some attempt other than "rent-controlled" apartments and publicly funded (those that
haven't been "gentrified") welfare housing (aka projects). That is bs. And I'm not just talking about the ghetto, I'm talking about trailer parks
and other versions of third-world slums as re-envisioned in this country.
See, my view is that a person has rights and despite whatever strange techno-social framework we've created over the century, the fetus is born into
this world with some natural contract that needs to be obliged.
It may not be unreasonable to want people to have land, but I would caution the use of terms such as "their own". Socialists won't be happy until
ALL property rights are obliterated. Oh, perhaps they will allow you to call your uniform "yours", but you better keep it up to standards, or
To an extent, I do agree with you that everyone born into the world has rights, and that there is in fact "social obligation" that is attached to
that. Just as a child may be born into a family, and no one thinks it's OK to then abandon that child, the same is true of greater society.
Exactly "what" each person should have, due to this societal obligation, may be hard to define, although no doubt reasoning might involve utilizing
some kind of "minimum" standards. Such as, should everyone enjoy some level of health care? Answer: Society in developed nations generally agree,
although they disagree substantially on what that minimum level should be of course.
I've shaken the rhetoric. That is why I don't toe the Democratic party line like I did back when I first became politically aware. I'm not going to
sit and defend socialism, because I've read too much Marx, Bakunin, Freire, Chomsky and DeBord to be 100% in the boat.
I know that State Socialism is not the saving grace, that is for sure, because it is just the inverse of State Capitalism. Really, it's just the
angle you view it from:
State Socialism: Government controls the means of production - Cronie-ism and a Bureaucrat class will take advantage of the system by placing
themselves high up on the ladder in the state-run factories and plants.
State Capitalism: The Private sector controls the means of production through contracts with the Federal, State and Municipal governments. Again,
Cronie-ism and a Boardroom cabal will take advantage of the system, paying off the politicians to secure bids through middle men (lobbyists).
Same thing, different perspective.
Agree, big problems with both. One thing that tends to get lost sometimes is the fact that both systems actually DO the same important thing, serve
the same function. That is, they concentrate wealth
, into the hands of the few. Capitalism is a bit more "honest" about it though.
The fact is, the USA is the world's most powerful COMMUNIST nation.
Not at all. How exactly do you see us as communist?? There are no communes. The USSR was not communist (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -
i.e., state socialism, i.e., state capitalism). Workers have no control here, if they did, you would not be seeing factories in China making crap to
be sold at Walmart where people earn poverty salaries.
Look up the "planks" of Communism, ANOK has them memorized. The USSA is fully on-board.
...the word is "profits", and it's not a dirty word.
Profit is what is made over and above the real cost of making a product. If it costs overhead for the building (electricity, water, etc.), paying the
labor and securing the raw materials, I don't see why any price must be set beyond the operational needs. You might say, "how can my 100-200 friends
be trusted to settle on the exact, correct price?" Well, I would imagine that when you are making things in the community where you live, for the
community where you live that you would not want to treat your neighbors usuriously. Do unto others, right?
I suppose your thoughts are not all that uncommon. Most people have little idea of what enterprise is all about. If you should take a course on
economics one day, you can learn a lot. Suffice to say, you don't know what "profits" are, not in the most important economic sense anyway.
Not surprising that you are also unfamiliar with the proper notion of "price". No, I won't bore you with the details, but I would again suggest
either taking a course, or maybe even picking up an old textbook. You might find some good info.
Setting aside the massive problems with trite notions such as "fair", and "reasonable", I think it is to your credit that you foresee the
potential problem of "laziness". Not really sure I like your solutions though, sorry to say. You would have the offender "castigated", in the
hopes that their "laziness" (tough one to define of course) would be "deterred." Hmmm. I'm not sure I would like working for you (er, I mean,
"me", er, I mean, "us"...ah, whatever. Guess I would just be "shamed" or something, perhaps into latrine duty??) Yes. Sounds just lovely.
Maybe a poor choice of words, I'm not talking about a corporal punishment system or a form of demotion, like latrine duty.
Then again, wasn't it Marx who said the assembly line system has detached the worker from his creation, away from the creator of an artisinal craft
and reduced to nothing but a drone doing a repetitive task.
The thought would be that, rather than going to IKEA for some semi-built product, partially put together in Thailand or China, a person who had skill
with wood working would make the whole chair from scratch. I know, I know, the argument is that then things go slower and are more costly. But then
people have jobs, chairs last generations, not three or four years until it chips or warps or breaks and then you send it out to the street corner to
be salvaged by some lowly scrapper or disposed of by your city's bulk service.
I'm looking at a nice, strong hutch made by a factory in upstate New York, sometime in the 30s apparently and it is very sturdy and still works the
way it was intended. Meanwhile, a dresser that my family and I picked out a year ago at IKEA is already breaking, just like the sagging bookcase I
bought at target 3 years ago. For me, it's an obvious answer.
I suppose this is yet another one of those things that isn't always obvious to the non-economist. On the surface, it would seem that making things
"to last" makes common sense, and to a certain extent, it does. But, as usual, both costs, and benefits must be taken into account with each
economic decision made. I'll just say that, sometimes the correct answer is not obvious in the beginning.
But no point in getting into all that. The thing I want to comment on is that your initial instincts were probably not too far off at all. As you
said, you even lived in a Third World nation, so perhaps socialistic thinking comes more natural to you than others. I'm not saying that as a jab,
you already explained that you have come to realize that Socialism isn't what it was cracked up to be, so you deserve a compliment, IMO.
So, OK, one of the reasons I haven't been posting in this thread is due to my weak stomach. I am nauseated at the nonsense being spouted, not so
much by you, but others, especially when it comes to radical idealistic re-tellings of history. No, the Spanish experience is hardly the "success
story" that has been repeated, AD NAUSEUM.
Again, not on you, but your initial point was in fact to "punish" the non-cooperative worker. You are a teacher? Ah, that's accounts for your
gentleness perhaps. Believe me, they were not so kind in Spain, where millions died, and some of the worst atrocities were committed, in all the
world's history. No, not all Communist guilt, but I would encourage anyone to look into the matter themselves. DO NOT BELIEVE the sheer propaganda
in this thread.
Sheesh, that was a long time ago. BUT, these people plan on visiting this nightmare upon us again, just as soon as they can. I'll oppose them.